That is what we have to deal with when feeneyites are allowed to spam on a Catholic forum.  I guess just offer it up.  Or you all could stop spamming.

Now if anyone wanted a demonstration of a papal decree not only rejected but made a laugh of, here it is above. 'Will I be damned for not knowing which thing spins around which?' If you think that is what the 1616 decree was about then your idea of Catholic history is pretty lacking.

To support his Catholic reasoning 'Lover of truth' offers an opinion of the sedevacantist Daly, because sedevacantism DEPENDS on them 'demoting' the decree enough to allow the popes from 1741 to believe in heliocentrism and to IGNORE the papal decree of 1616. Well Daly was not aware that the records of the 1820 Holy Office stated very clearly the 1616 was an irreversible papal decree. Now you can quote as many opinions as you like, but for me there is only one that set the law, Pope Paul V's followed by Pope Urban VIII's clarification of its infallibility. The day I let Einstein decide the authority of a papal decree like yourself, pigs will fly.

As for the wise cracks, well they are also an insult to the theological wisdom of St Robert Bellarmine, the Cardinal who presided over the dogma that instructs us what the Scriptures say is true and of faith:

‘Second. I say that, as you know, the Council of Trent prohibits expounding the Scriptures contrary to the common agreement of the holy Fathers. And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the centre of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators. Nor may it be answered that this is not a matter of faith, for if it is not a matter of faith from the point of view of the subject matter (ex parte objecti), it is a matter of faith on the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). It would be just as heretical to deny that Abraham had two sons and Jacob twelve, as it would be to deny the virgin birth of Christ, for both are declared by the Holy Ghost through the prophets and apostles.’

Today however, thanks to millions of 'lovers of truth' Cardinal Bellarmine is now labeled as a fundamentalist troublemaker. And if you do not believe me read Gaudium et Spes No. 36.

 

All due to alcon,  but this thread seems more like a booger fight than argumentation; refute WHAT >> specifically << ?

‘The edition of the Index published in 1819 was as inexorable towards the works of Copernicus and Galileo as its predecessors had been. But in the year 1820 came a crisis. Canon Guiseppe Settele (1770-1841), Professor of Astronomy at Rome La Sapienza, had written an elementary book [Elements of Optics and Astronomy] in which the Copernican system was taken for granted. The Master of the Sacred Palace, Fr Filippo Anfossi (1748-1825), a Dominican friar, as censor of the press in Rome, refused to allow the book to be printed unless Canon Settele revised his work and treated the Copernican theory as merely a hypothesis.’---Andrew White: A History…., p.156.

---

In spite of Fr Anfossi's efforts to defend the authority and truth of the 1616 decree, Olivieri convinced Pope Pius VII that heliocentrism was proven and that the ban on these heretical books could no longer be sustained. Here is what Fr Anfossi got for his efforts to uphold the 1616 decree, insisting that science cannot falsify the pontifical definition of biblical truth:

Olvieri: ‘From these four points there follows four presumably criminal charges against the Most Rev. Master Anfossi. These suggest the question whether it is appropriate to take disciplinary action against him, and if so, what it should be. Before discussing something that may aggravate his situation, one should take into account something that may justify him in his own eyes.’
The final outcome of Olivieri’s report resulted in the following decrees:

1820 Decree states: ‘The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today, even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation, as it is has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.’[1]

We see then, Olivieri’s two-type heliocentric arguments were fully accepted by Pope Pius VII. Had the above decree, probably written up by Fr Olivieri, come from the inner sanctum of the Royal Society of London one could understand, for it gives priority of the subject matter (ex parte objecti) over the part of the ones who have spoken (ex parte dicentis). In other words it practically accuses the popes and theologians of 1616-20 of basing their decisions on false science rather than on the rules of Trent, protecting the unanimous reading of Scripture by the Fathers on the matter.

    In 1822 the Holy Office issued another decree, actually applying penalties for not allowing the publication of books presenting the motion of the earth as a logical conclusion of science (and presumably therefore as the correct reading of Scripture):

The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.[2]

---

[1] W. Brandmüller and E.J. Greipl, eds., Copernico, Galileo e la Chiesa. Fine della controversia (1820). Gli atti del Sant’uffizio (Florence: Leo Olschki, 1992), pp.300-301; translation from  Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science,

[2] Cited by A. Fantoli, Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church, p.475.

‘On December 1st, 1820, the Inquisition consultant discussed Olivieri’s answers and decided to request the opinion of two other experts, Garofalo and Capellari (who would later be elected Pope Gregory XVI). At this point the docuмentary trail is lost, but not the historical connection. For on 20 May 1833, while deliberating on a new proposed edition of the Index, Pope Gregory XVI decided that it would omit the five [banned] books by Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Foscarini and Zúñiga, but that this omission would be made without explicit comment.[1] Thus the 1835 edition of the Index for the first time omitted from the list Galileo’s Dialogue, as well as the other books.’ --- Retrying Galileo, p.198.

 Without explicit comment,’ now there is an interesting remark, worthy of a separate chapter trying to make head or tail of this ‘Retreat of the Church’ as Andrew White calls it. Gregory XVI is the pope who taught the following:

“Therefore, the Church has, by its divine institution, the power of the magisterium to teach and define matters of faith and morals and to interpret the Holy Scriptures without danger of error.” --- Commissum Divinitus (# 4):

No doubt it suited all in the Church at the time and even to this very day to try to give the impression that the matter had now ended and all had been resolved according to science and cannon law, and that Catholic faith and reason had once again been restored under the principle that there can be no conflict between both.

---

[1] Pierre Noel Mayaud: La Condamnation… Rome, 1997, pp.271-72.

The Dimond Brothers took up the position of Olivieri the chancer. You see the very credibility of sedevacantism says that a heretic pope cannot be a pope. But if any of the post-1741 popes were heliocentrists then they could not have been popes. So the great sedevacantist defenders the Dimonds had to DENY THE AUTHORITY OF THE 1616 decree and the authority of Pope Urban VIII in confirming the decrees infallibility and irrevisability.

Punishment corresponds to guilt. Now the woman was more grievously punished than the man, as appears from Genesis 3. Therefore she sinned more grievously than the man. As stated (Article 3), the gravity of a sin depends on the species rather than on a circuмstance of that sin. Accordingly we must assert that, if we consider the condition attaching to these persons, the man's sin is the more grievous, because he was more perfect than the woman.

    As regards the genus itself of the sin, the sin of each is considered to be equal, for each sinned by pride. Hence Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 35): "Eve in excusing herself betrays disparity of sex, though parity of pride."

    But as regards the species of pride, the woman sinned more grievously, for three reasons. First, because she was more puffed up than the man. For the woman believed in the serpent's persuasive words, namely that God had forbidden them to eat of the tree, lest they should become like to Him; so that in wishing to attain to God's likeness by eating of the forbidden fruit, her pride rose to the height of desiring to obtain something against God's will. On the other hand, the man did not believe this to be true; wherefore he did not wish to attain to God's likeness against God's will: but his pride consisted in wishing to attain thereto by his own power. Secondly, the woman not only herself sinned, but suggested sin to the man; wherefore she sinned against both God and her neighbor. Thirdly, the man's sin was diminished by the fact that, as Augustine says (Gen. ad lit. xi, 42), "he consented to the sin out of a certain friendly good-will, on account of which a man sometimes will offend God rather than make an enemy of his friend. That he ought not to have done so is shown by the just issue of the Divine sentence."

    It is therefore evident that the woman's sin was more grievous than the man's.

    The woman was deceived because she was first of all puffed up with pride. Wherefore her ignorance did not excuse, but aggravated her sin, in so far as it was the cause of her being puffed up with still greater pride. In the act of tempting the devil was by way of principal agent; whereas the woman was employed as an instrument of temptation in bringing about the downfall of the man, both because the woman was weaker than the man, and consequently more liable to be deceived, and because, on account of her union with man, the devil was able to deceive the man especially through her. (Summa Theologiae Second Part of the Second Part Question 163 and ibid. Question 165)